George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[stui magpie]

^

i dunno, it just seems that in this day and age having a limit to appeals and having to live with a final decision doesn't work.

[Pies4shaw]

FWIW, the President, the Chief Justice and the Honourable Justice Weinberg will work this out, entirely unassisted.

[K]

"The Court of Appeal will hand down its judgment on Wednesday next week from 9.30am, live-streamed from the Supreme Court."

[David]

Thanks K! Will be watching with interest. I reckon he walks free, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

One more sleep to go.

[K]

"The 13 reasons why (according to his lawyers) Pell should be freed...

The lawyers say the offences could not have occurred because:

The timing of the assaults was impossible. The victim initially told police both attacks took place in 1996 but prosecutors told the jury the second incident happened in 1997.
It was not possible for Pell to be in the sacristy a few minutes after mass when witnesses said they saw him go to the front of the cathedral to greet parishioners.
It was not possible for Pell to be robed and alone in the sacristy, because church officials always ensured the then archbishop was never left unattended.
It was not possible for the two choirboys to be sexually assaulted in the sacristy undetected.
It was not possible for the boys to leave a procession outside without being noticed.
Officials near the sacristy did not see either boy.
It was not possible for the boys to be absent from the choir room, after the procession, without someone noting their absences.
It was not possible for the boys to re-enter the choir room unnoticed.
The crimes attributed to Pell are physically impossible because he wore heavy, cumbersome robes.
The prosecution case that the second incident happened in 1997 was contrary to the victim's own evidence.
No one noticed the second incident when the victim said he was attacked in a busy corridor.
It was not possible for Pell to be in the corridor because he would have either been greeting parishioners or at the end of any internal procession.
Other people present did not see anything consistent with the prosecution case."

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 52j16.html


[I don't know how #10 is different from #1.]

[K]

FWIW, the President, the Chief Justice and the Honourable Justice Weinberg will work this out, entirely unassisted.

The Age tells us Justice Weinberg was born in Sweden. I've no idea why The Age thinks that has any relevance to anything.

[David]

The appeal has been dismissed, with a 2-1 majority.

[stui magpie]

Just read that.

I suppose the reasons will be interesting to read and perhaps how close the 2-1 was to being 1-2.

[David]

Basically, they found that the acts were both possible and, given the compelling testimony of the victim, beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg, however, found that the testimony was unbelievable and implausible.

Perhaps the prosecution lawyer, Christopher Boyce, was more brilliant than any of us gave him credit for (or more likely, that it didn't matter greatly what he said or did during the hearing).

[thesoretoothsayer]

The appeal has been dismissed, with a 2-1 majority.

Really surprised.
It does seem that for sex crimes, at least, the presumption of innocence is being replaced by a presumption of guilt.

[David]

While that may or may not be true in the media and popular discourse, I don't see any reason to believe that such a trend has infected the processes of the courts. While I also found the allegations implausible, it may well be that the victim's testimony (which we don't have access to) was extremely compelling, and that Pell's defences simply weren't as rock solid as he thought they were. Ultimately, any conviction for any crime rests on such matters, and even if Pell were innocent in this case he wouldn't be the first (or hundred thousandth) person to go down for a crime he didn't commit.

Anyway, off to the High Court next, if he decides to appeal further and they agree to hear the case. From what I've read, he'd have very little chance of winning that.

[stui magpie]

Apparently the video evidence from the victim is far more compelling than reading the transcript.

having said that, seeing reference to decisions that things were "not impossible" still throws me a bit. They had to decide that only was it possible, or probable that he did those things, but that they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did do them.

I still struggle with how they could come to that decision, but I haven't seen all of the evidence.

[David]